Monarchies 34 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ;5398433I don't generally like the idea of upper-houses anyways, because they are only a check on radical changes.[/QUOTE]

Then I have to seriously question your judgement given a lot of things that come out of lower chambers to be shot to bits by upper chambers around the world. :rolleyes:

Yes, the lower house in the UK would dearly love to have the power of a monarch. I wouldn't want them to have because they have a nasty habit of attempting to rush through laws that haven't had an iota of thought in them to show they are "doing something" about any given situation in the newspapers.

Commissar MercZ;5398433
However, unlike the House of Lords, the Senate has a real power and can be influenced from the outside and be changed by vote by the people.

On the other hand, the House of Lords is based on peerage (in this modern age?) and sits religious officials. I find it funny that the Church of England is still formally tied to the state despite how things are now.
[/QUOTE]
The house of lords has real power, It's our upper house.

Contrary to your obviously uninformed opinion it also can be influenced from the outside. It's quite simple, you write a letter to them and they read it. Unlike the commons, you can expect them to actually do something positive about the issue, even if the commons don't want to have anything to do with it because it would be unpopular.

To quote The Register;-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/lordy_gosh/page2.html
One of the reasons Labour has been able to get away with this is a view the Reg has encountered many times when talking to members of the Lower House — they simply dare not argue the case for sexual freedom because they are afraid of how it would be portrayed to the electorate. Much of what is being proposed or passed into Law at present may – just — have majority support. But only just. Yet, if one listens to debates in the House of Commons, there is almost no opposition.

Whilst the noble Lords could not agree quite on the solution – Baroness Miller teased Lord Faulkner with the suggestion that proportional representation might help – it does underscore the need to retain a body such as the Lords. Because at present, almost the only people prepared to put their necks on the line for topics that won’t play well with the Daily Mail sit in that House, not the Commons. ®[/quote]
This fact that the Lords are prepared to deal with the issues that don't play well in the media is the reason i'm still able to enjoy several of my hobbies. Airsoft would have been blocked by the VCRA bill as the elected politicians wanted to vote it through quickly to appear "tough on crime". The lords actually took up our cause and forced things to be written into law sensibly.

I can bang on about this all day. A member of the lower house will not represent your interests. My interests have *NEVER* been met by my elected politician, and they have *ALWAYS* been adequately addressed by the unpaid, unelected and completely unaccountable Lords and Ladies of the upper house.

Also, why are you against a minority of Christians being represented by a minority of bishops? Isn't that a bit anti democratic? Our experience has been that it's not possible to exclude religion from government (which seems to be carried through by the fact that with your official seperation of church and state creationism is taught as science instead of religion in America) so we've just recognised that religion is important to some people and the church has a few seats. 26 out of ~730, as a point of fact.

Commissar MercZ;5398433
You don't know how checks and balances and seperation of powers work do you? They aren't exclusive to a republican system. [/QUOTE]

As you say, checks and balanced aren't exclusive to a republican system. Especially not when many of them were copied in the late 18th century from a Constitutional monarchy that you used to be a colony of. :D

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398433]
Then why bother having them?

I'm not sure. Nobody really trusts Parliament, or elected politicians. Well, 13% of people in the UK trust politicians. You can always find a sucker if you look hard enough. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to abolish Parliament. It's the old turkeys voting for christmas problem.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398433]I'd rather have someone that I could at least have the comfort of knowing they're there because they've had training in diplomacy and politics, not because they came out of the right vagina.

My dear chap, I think the Royals do have some training in diplomacy and politics as well as more experience than many (and possibly any) of your politicians. Try again.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398433]You support a system that entitles people to certain privileges just because they were born in the right place?

Yes.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5398433] And thank you for generalizing me with the other 300+ million Americans in the USA. For one thing many of them don't share my views, and more so most of them could care less.

Your welcome. But i'm right, aren't I? Most Americans that i've met IRL appear to be staunch republicans believing firmly that monarchies are evil because you were taught that you broke off the shackles of the tyrannical king George to gain your independence.

Personally, I feel that us being a constitutional monarchy even 300 years ago undermines this message slightly because by my reckoning anything and everything you were rebelling against was the responsibility of our Parliament.

But teaching that you were rebelling against an elected parliament would kind of undermine the "republic good" and "Monarchy BAAAAADDDDDDD" message, wouldn't it?

I'm just honestly confused about why it is that Americans are bothered with changing a form of government in another country that the people there are perfectly happy with, and has been working perfectly well for 300+ years. The overwhelming majority of people in Europe simply don't care about how you run your country, save for being glad we don't have your system of government.

Nemmerle;5398439Both of course. If you're holding out for an entirely altruistic political process you'll be here for a long time.

Some people look for power because they want to protect something and others look for power because they get off on it. On a local level, with specific issues, you get a lot of the former kind of person; they accept authority to fix stuff. On the state level you get a lot of the latter kind; they go after authority because they have an ideal vision of how you should live nailed in their heads. The key is finding a balance; getting integrated enough powers that you don't get a thousand different laws, trade regulations armies, etc – and separate enough powers that you don't end up with the inmates running the asylum.

The machinery of state is always going to be subservient to those in power. So you've got to divy authority up so no-one ends up with too much and then make some of the people involved in that process answerable to the general public. Preferably you draw a higher house – that authorises laws but can't propose them - from professions that deal with the the areas the laws are likely to concern, or award life-long roles in government to people so they can actually build up a wealth of experience. A lower house you have directly elected by the people. Balance the responsibility within those areas between two separate hierarchies.

A peerage isn't actually a bad way to do it. They'll tend to have the best educations – money really does make better educated people; posh schools bring in the big bucks because they work - and they won't be unduly influenced by fluctuations in party-politics.

If democracy was perfect; the average voter smart well educated and diligent; you wouldn't need to divide up the authority and entrench expertise to withstand the fluctuations of party-politics. Sadly however the average voter is not particularly smart or diligent and we have an incredibly complex society that even very wise people cannot appreciate the totality of.

You're building a system that attracts certain kinds of people and simultaneously restrains the wrong kind of people when they do end up there - and they do end up there.[/quote]

I think there are more effective ways to find those more suited for governance than letting them get protected by a title. If they truly are the best of the best, let them fight it out with others who think they are the best. Refresh the pool.

It's not as if a "democracy" is immune from this method though. Formerly there is no system of peerage in the United States, but there is a significant part of them who come from strong backgrounds, professions, or a political family of some sort. A different sort of aristocracy forms in this situation, though it constantly refreshes itself. The difference is it doesn't allow itself to stagnate into formalities.

And I don't think because of political fluctuations that it excludes those under peerage. They have as much of a vested interest in the direction of the country and the way policy is formulated, because it may come back to bite them if they form something unfavorable.

[QUOTE=Freyr;5398642]Then I have to seriously question your judgement given a lot of things that come out of lower chambers to be shot to bits by upper chambers around the world. :rolleyes:

I do not understand what you are trying to get to here. It may not appear much to you because you think the House of Lords is on your side, but this is why extreme changes don't generally take place in most countries because of a presence of an upper house that is elected and formed differently from the lower one.

Yes, the lower house in the UK would dearly love to have the power of a monarch. I wouldn't want them to have because they have a nasty habit of attempting to rush through laws that haven't had an iota of thought in them to show they are "doing something" about any given situation in the newspapers.

The UK system is set in another framework. A Republican system is one that removes a system that seats one purely based on their blood.

The house of lords has real power, It's our upper house.

Then why not let it be affected by the people?

Contrary to your obviously uninformed opinion it also can be influenced from the outside. It's quite simple, you write a letter to them and they read it. Unlike the commons, you can expect them to actually do something positive about the issue, even if the commons don't want to have anything to do with it because it would be unpopular. To quote The Register;-

This fact that the Lords are prepared to deal with the issues that don't play well in the media is the reason i'm still able to enjoy several of my hobbies. Airsoft would have been blocked by the VCRA bill as the elected politicians wanted to vote it through quickly to appear "tough on crime". The lords actually took up our cause and forced things to be written into law sensibly.

I can bang on about this all day. A member of the lower house will not represent your interests. My interests have *NEVER* been met by my elected politician, and they have *ALWAYS* been adequately addressed by the unpaid, unelected and completely unaccountable Lords and Ladies of the upper house.

This is a problem with liberal democracies, not the concept of Republicanism. Frankly it's sad if you think some guys with money and an inherited title are actually blocking those things because they're concerned about you.

And this wise judgment didn't extend too much to Iraq for what it's worth. They aren't immune to these things, and one can't replace them when they make blunders.

Also, why are you against a minority of Christians being represented by a minority of bishops? Isn't that a bit anti democratic? Our experience has been that it's not possible to exclude religion from government (which seems to be carried through by the fact that with your official seperation of church and state creationism is taught as science instead of religion in America) so we've just recognized that religion is important to some people and the church has a few seats. 26 out of ~730, as a point of fact.

I believe in a separation of church and state. Secularism. What ever you want to call it. They shouldn't be having input in the direction of a modern state.

And I've never been taught "creationism" in school. There are people crying for that, but they won't be able to pass it because there's no place for it. However it's a religious sentiment that people put faith in, the same way one might put similar faith in lords and kings.

As you say, checks and balanced aren't exclusive to a republican system. Especially not when many of them were copied in the late 18th century from a Constitutional monarchy that you used to be a colony of. :D

When was I a "colony"? I've been noticing you have lumped me with other Americans and yourself in a similar fashion. I'd say that most of your defense of a monarchy comes from nationalist/patriotic grounds to be honest

The United States borrowed mainly from a bicameral- which isn't unique to the Westminster system and has been in other societies.

However the point is this- were people elected and moved around, or were they sitting there because of relation to a monarch?

I'm not sure. Nobody really trusts Parliament, or elected politicians. Well, 13% of people in the UK trust politicians. You can always find a sucker if you look hard enough. :rolleyes:

And those sitting in House of Lords aren't politicians?

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to abolish Parliament. It's the old turkeys voting for christmas problem.

More so because of nationalist sentiment.

My dear chap, I think the Royals do have some training in diplomacy and politics as well as more experience than many (and possibly any) of your politicians. Try again.

Yes, the "royals" who have made a wonderful mess in the post-Colonial world. Or lined up behind Iraq.

Yes.

Personally I like to think people got to where they are by some amount of work and knowledge, not entitlement. In fact if people with your sentiments won out in the struggle in the past 200 years, then you would probably not have the things you have today.

Your welcome. But i'm right, aren't I? Most Americans that i've met IRL appear to be staunch republicans believing firmly that monarchies are evil because you were taught that you broke off the shackles of the tyrannical king George to gain your independence.

Again with your nationalist rantings? Most Americans I know right now are focused about:

-A perceived socialist take over by Obama
-Sports
-Reality TV

Most Americans actually could care less one way or another to be honest. When Queen Elizabeth joined there was a media blitz because people were enamored by the image of a monarch. There wasn't mass protests against her visit now as there?

Personally, I feel that us being a constitutional monarchy even 300 years ago undermines this message slightly because by my reckoning anything and everything you were rebelling against was the responsibility of our Parliament.

"us"? Again I think you are acting out of patriotic sentiment than defending this system for its value.

But teaching that you were rebelling against an elected parliament would kind of undermine the "republic good" and "Monarchy BAAAAADDDDDDD" message, wouldn't it?

For the upteenth time "I" wasn't rebelling against parliament. Quit living in the past. I wasn't "taught" this beyond a brief overview of the revolution- I am acting out of this because I find it odd that modern states are still clinging on to this and having a system that seems more like a relic to be honest.

I'm just honestly confused about why it is that Americans are bothered with changing a form of government in another country that the people there are perfectly happy with, and has been working perfectly well for 300+ years. The overwhelming majority of people in Europe simply don't care about how you run your country, save for being glad we don't have your system of government.

It's not "my" system of government. Why are you dodging the issue? You keep bringing this back to "you Americans" or "our" form of government. Most Republican movements are rooted in the native populace, and the United States isn't the only "republic"- this includes France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic etc... Hell the US didn't even promote Republicanism that much- it was more concerned with the creation of a market. France if anything was the strongest promoter of Republican sentiment and still fashions itself as such.

What you are seeing in America is corruption and inefficiency- no state is immune from this. However at least it can be affected and changed because people aren't tied down due to their birth. Even financial and political families can collapse if they mis-step, and be replaced by a different group of people.

Commissar MercZ;5399576I do not understand what you are trying to get to here. It may not appear much to you because you think the House of Lords is on your side, but this is why extreme changes don't generally take place in most countries because of a presence of an upper house that is elected and formed differently from the lower one. [/QUOTE]
The point, in case you missed it being quite explicitly stated was that elected politicians won't touch any issue that might play badly in the newspapers or other media with a barge pole. They also suffer from short termism, populism and creating ill considered reactionary laws as well as all of the issues created by party politics.

The Lords however, tend to be concerned about the reality of the situation, rather than how it's being portrayed in the media. They can also take a longer term view, seeing as they are appointed for life. It's also all but impossible to force legislation through the lords by any party given the proportion of Lords independent of any political party.

Commissar MercZ;5399576
The UK system is set in another framework. A Republican system is one that removes a system that seats one purely based on their blood. [/QUOTE]

This demonstrates a profound, astounding lack of understanding of what your arguing against. Tell me, what proportion of the House of Lords is hereditary vs appointed?

I ask simply so that your going to have to look it up so that at the least your next argument actually represents a situation correct within the last 200 years. FYI; The House of Lords hasn't been comprised mostly (let along purely) of hereditary members since the reign of King George III.

Commissar MercZ;5399576
Then why not let it be affected by the people?[/QUOTE]

As I say, they have a postal address, and they are influenced by people bringing issues to their attention; they actually do something about issues that are raised, this is the very definition of "affected". In addition, where do you suppose the people appointed to the Lords come from?

Commissar MercZ;5399576 This is a problem with liberal democracies, not the concept of Republicanism. Frankly it's sad if you think some guys with money and an inherited title are actually blocking those things because they're concerned about you. [/QUOTE]

Yet again, you state your opinion that the House of Lords is a bunch of guys with "money and an inherited title". This is factually incorrect. Again; what proportion of the House of Lords is hereditary vs appointed?

I'm perfectly happy with highly qualified people with a long history of service being elected to the lords. Ah? You mean it's already done that way? :rolleyes:

As a point of detail relating to your factually incorrect implication that Lords buy their way into the political system; it's a criminal offence to attempt to sell a seat in the House of Lords under the honors (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. As a point of detail, that was a piece of legislation introduced by the House of Lords to prevent elected politicians abusing their privilege to appoint someone to the House or Lords by selling peerages.

Might I suggest that it would be worth you reading a little about the House of Lords before you continue criticising it?

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5399576]
I believe in a separation of church and state. Secularism. What ever you want to call it. They shouldn't be having input in the direction of a modern state.

And I've never been taught "creationism" in school. There are people crying for that, but they won't be able to pass it because there's no place for it. However it's a religious sentiment that people put faith in, the same way one might put similar faith in lords and kings.

Actually, there is a place for it religion in a modern state. We teach creationism in schools as part of Religious Education, itself a subset of a subject called Personal & Social Education which covers a wide range of things that don't belong anywhere else in the school syllabus. It's perfectly healthy to educate children on beliefs held by various religions, especially when it's essential to understanding many cultures around the world.

It's also perfectly healthy to allow religion a voice in the political system, it allows the church to make an argument directly rather than having to go through stages of doublespeak to make their arguments heard.

Ie, the USA is having huge issues with this "Intelligent Design" creationist lark, according to US news sources one in eight teachers are teaching creationism alongside evolution as science. By simply teaching creationism as a religious subject rather than as science then the church is happy (do you see the church demanding "Intelligent Design" to be taught in the UK?) because their point is already represented and they don't need to start coming up with seemingly secular arguments to get their view represented.

Yes, you personally don't like it. Yes, it breaches the American ideal of having religion separated from state. Yes, it actually seems to works better than disenfranchising what some people consider an important organisation.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5399576]
I'd say that most of your defense of a monarchy comes from nationalist/patriotic grounds to be honest

Ah, i'm glad you did get the point after all. It's just as well, I couldn't get much less subtle.

Yes, I'm mainly supporting our system of government because I live in it, and it works perfectly well.

Likewise, your mainly supporting meddling with government systems that your own comments clearly and irrefutably demonstrate you have little knowledge of. One can speculate that it is because you live in a republic and beleive that we would be better off with your system of government, regardless that our system clearly works at least as well as yours and arguably better in cases.

Otherwise shortened to "patriotic reasons" Touché?

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5399576]
Personally I like to think people got to where they are by some amount of work and knowledge, not entitlement. In fact if people with your sentiments won out in the struggle in the past 200 years, then you would probably not have the things you have today.

Um. Yes. Having pointed out that the majority of the Lords are elected based on their work, knowledge and excellence in their fields before being elected to an unpaid role your shooting yourself in the foot with that argument.

Personally, I think you'd have been better arguing 400 years, rather than 200 because that would have included the English Civil War, which did actually result in the King being executed and Oliver Cromwell establishing a Republic with himself as Lord Protector by military force.

That republic lasted as long as he did, when he died the Monarchy was invited back by common consent of the people and King Charles the Second took the throne. Or maybe the Glorious Revolution against a Catholic monarch intend on depriving the people of their ancient freedoms? That led to the Bill of Rights 1689 which is widely considered as the basis for the American Bill of Rights based on the similarities between the documents.

But since you've said the last 200 years, would you like to point out which points of our history your referring to in particular? =p

I'm quite interested to see what you actually come up with that doesn't support my point of view.

[QUOTE=Commissar MercZ;5399576]Again I think you are acting out of patriotic sentiment than defending this system for its value.

Yet you refuse to accept the merits of our system and simply expect that we would want to blindly implement the US system in it's entirety.

Viewed in that light, doesn't it appear to you that your acting out of patriotic sentiment rather than looking at the value provided by our system over what a clone of an American system would provide? I say that because frankly your arguments are based against a system we haven't had for several hundred years. :lookaround:

Freyr;5400265The point, in case you missed it being quite explicitly stated was that elected politicians won't touch any issue that might play badly in the newspapers or other media with a barge pole. They also suffer from short termism, populism and creating ill considered reactionary laws as well as all of the issues created by party politics.[/QUOTE]

You are looking at the issues of politics in general, not the concept of having hereditary leaders or not. Again the point of this was a monarch- I just brought up the House of Lords because it too seems to be a relic, even if it was changed from the inside to adapt to modern times. The issue is that of the monarch and the royal family.

The Lords however, tend to be concerned about the reality of the situation, rather than how it's being portrayed in the media. They can also take a longer term view, seeing as they are appointed for life. It's also all but impossible to force legislation through the lords by any party given the proportion of Lords independent of any political party.

That's fine and all, but what about the Monarch and the royal family themselves? You're voicing common criticisms of the political structure and the state.

This demonstrates a profound, astounding lack of understanding of what your arguing against. Tell me, what proportion of the House of Lords is hereditary vs appointed?

There shouldn't be hereditary or appointed at all- but most of my issue is with all monarchs to be honest.

I ask simply so that your going to have to look it up so that at the least your next argument actually represents a situation correct within the last 200 years. FYI; The House of Lords hasn't been comprised mostly (let along purely) of hereditary members since the reign of King George III.

This is because, like other states, the UK gravitated towards changes in its political structure so that the old elite could cooperate with the new elite, with out a radical revolution the process, ala the French Revolution.

As I say, they have a postal address, and they are influenced by people bringing issues to their attention; they actually do something about issues that are raised, this is the very definition of "affected". In addition, where do you suppose the people appointed to the Lords come from?

The same place where any suit in politics come from- the interests of the ruling classes.

Yet again, you state your opinion that the House of Lords is a bunch of guys with "money and an inherited title". This is factually incorrect. Again; what proportion of the House of Lords is hereditary vs appointed?

Heredity vs Appointed- why have either? That's the same issue with the US Supreme Court to be honest.

But how does this factor into the matter of the monarchy and the royal family?

I'm perfectly happy with highly qualified people with a long history of service being elected to the lords. Ah? You mean it's already done that way? :rolleyes:

Take away the ceremonial aspects and the rest of the nonsense, and it might be worthwhile.

Again though, why not talk about the Monarch itself?

As a point of detail relating to your factually incorrect implication that Lords buy their way into the political system; it's a criminal offence to attempt to sell a seat in the House of Lords under the honors (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. As a point of detail, that was a piece of legislation introduced by the House of Lords to prevent elected politicians abusing their privilege to appoint someone to the House or Lords by selling peerages.

Sure, there's all those legislations saying this and that, but does it actually happen in practice? I'm sure that matters when any state goes and does stuff that after the fact people realized was shady.

Might I suggest that it would be worth you reading a little about the House of Lords before you continue criticising it?

Why don't you bring this back to the concept of the Monarchy? Frankly it's amusing how you are shifting it away from the original topic to the House of Lords. I was bring up the House of Lords, because it, like the monarchy, is a remnant of an older system whose right to exist nowadays is based mostly on its perceived historical worth.

Actually, there is a place for it religion in a modern state. We teach creationism in schools as part of Religious Education, itself a subset of a subject called Personal & Social Education which covers a wide range of things that don't belong anywhere else in the school syllabus. It's perfectly healthy to educate children on beliefs held by various religions, especially when it's essential to understanding many cultures around the world.

There's a difference between educating about religion, and religious-based education.

It's also perfectly healthy to allow religion a voice in the political system, it allows the church to make an argument directly rather than having to go through stages of doublespeak to make their arguments heard.

Ie, the USA is having huge issues with this "Intelligent Design" creationist lark, according to US news sources one in eight teachers are teaching creationism alongside evolution as science. By simply teaching creationism as a religious subject rather than as science then the church is happy (do you see the church demanding "Intelligent Design" to be taught in the UK?) because their point is already represented and they don't need to start coming up with seemingly secular arguments to get their view represented.

Yes, you personally don't like it. Yes, it breaches the American ideal of having religion separated from state. Yes, it actually seems to works better than disenfranchising what some people consider an important organisation.

Again, you bring this up as a concern of "American ideals". Secularism is hardly something unique to the United States, it was being voiced before its establishment. This matter goes beyond the issue of a political system- there are demographic and social differences in the United States which causes religious awareness and following to be much higher than anywhere else in the west. I'm strongly opposed to religion having any influence in the realm of the state, but this secular debate is not relevant in the thread. These tangents you keep bring up, they have nothing to deal with this. I'm not sure if you're falling into strawmen or what, but it's not doing much to be honest.

Yes, I'm mainly supporting our system of government because I live in it, and it works perfectly well.

What exactly does a monarch do that couldn't be done in a position where the head of state isn't based on heredity?

Likewise, your mainly supporting meddling with government systems that your own comments clearly and irrefutably demonstrate you have little knowledge of. One can speculate that it is because you live in a republic and beleive that we would be better off with your system of government, regardless that our system clearly works at least as well as yours and arguably better in cases.

Otherwise shortened to "patriotic reasons" Touché?

Oh wow, now twisting words that I said?

I am not promoting an anti-monarchical belief on the basis that I think that the American system is for some reason, superior. I wouldn't want to push "my" (?) system, by this I'm assuming what is the American political structure, onto other people. Republicanism isn't limited to one country, and everyone has their own systems. What is common between all Republics is that no one is getting a position because they inherited it.

So with that in mind, am I, the person who is advancing an argument that goes across all nations acting out of patriotic sentiment, or is the person who falls back to defending the peculiarities of their national system (and no one else's system, for that matter) acting out of patriotic sentiment?

What I am arguing against is why countries are still having hereditary heads of state, a monarch, in this day and age. The most I can see with them still being there is that people think they are ceremonial, or out of patriotic pride. Why not get rid of all the pleasantries?

Um. Yes. Having pointed out that the majority of the Lords are elected based on their work, knowledge and excellence in their fields before being elected to an unpaid role your shooting yourself in the foot with that argument.

This is nice and all, but what about the monarch? That's what I was talking about.

Personally, I think you'd have been better arguing 400 years, rather than 200 because that would have included the English Civil War, which did actually result in the King being executed and Oliver Cromwell establishing a Republic with himself as Lord Protector by military force.

Cromwell was more of a puritan radical, and that was what the focus of much of his concepts were. France is typically where Republican sentiment came to popularity, and during the 1800s most Republican movements in one form or another took inspiration from France. This includes the Charterists of the United Kingdom too.

That republic lasted as long as he did, when he died the Monarchy was invited back by common consent of the people and King Charles the Second took the throne. Or maybe the Glorious Revolution against a Catholic monarch intend on depriving the people of their ancient freedoms? That led to the Bill of Rights 1689 which is widely considered as the basis for the American Bill of Rights based on the similarities between the documents.

Why should a monarch be there in the first place though? This is all nice and mushy, but you aren't showing me why a monarch should be there beyond this conception that they are harmless.

But since you've said the last 200 years, would you like to point out which points of our history your referring to in particular? =p

I'm quite interested to see what you actually come up with that doesn't support my point of view.

The UK monarchy is only where it is because it responded to agitation from the people. The system that was present in the early 1800s is different what it is now- since then more and more power came into the Prime Minister and the House of Commons, with the House of Lords falling back to a more judicial position.

In the last 200 years, there were movements like the Charterists and others who began to push and advance their views. The old ruling class came to terms with the new ruling class and found a solution that wouldn't involve mass violence. This is the reason why in 1848, the UK was largely spared from Republican revolts that the rest of Europe was experiencing.

With France- France came back to a Monarchy with Napoleon and after his defeat, it passed to a branch of the House of Orleans. Like the return of the crown after Cromwell's revolt, the old nobility in France hailed this as vindication that the monarchy was inherently better. The people of France would eventually overthrow the monarch again in 1830, leading to the House of Orleans. The House of Orleans tried to make the political system in France like that of the UK- and they failed. In 1848 the monarch was overthrown, another Republic was declared, only to be overtaken by Napoleon III, who was in power in 1871. Another Republic was declared after that. Even after this there was continuous agitation between the monarchists and republican factions, one that would continue right up until after WWII.

Lets take a look at the uprisings in 1848 in German states, the Italian states, Denmark, and other countries in Europe. All were directed against monarchs, and all failed. It began to present a message however, that all these monarchical systems were not meeting their demands. A United Germany tossed out the old monarch (but kept the Junkers and other elements, which would cause trouble later in another form). Italy threw out its Monarch for its role in the development of fascism. Belgium followed suit. Poland never returned to their old monarchy, and Hungary and Austria have left those in the past.

Now if they were all idle and thought "oh well the current system works fine" and trusted people who inherited their positions, not agitate, then yes, the world would be much different.

Yet you refuse to accept the merits of our system and simply expect that we would want to blindly implement the US system in it's entirety.

Again, you are bringing it back to this. For the 10th time already, the "US system" isn't the only Republic, much less the strongest advocate of such. The US is only interested in economic partners- the government could care less what system they have.

I don't see the "merits" of "your" system because I don't see how it can't be done in a system where there is no monarch. What I don't see the merit of is having a royal family retain its holdings because its the royal family. A body like the House of Lords can exist in a Republican-style system with no problem, the issue here is the matter of the monarch and its entitlement to exist.

Viewed in that light, doesn't it appear to you that your acting out of patriotic sentiment rather than looking at the value provided by our system over what a clone of an American system would provide? I say that because frankly your arguments are based against a system we haven't had for several hundred years. :lookaround:

Again, for the 11th time... this is about Republicanism and getting rid of monarchs- not the US system. This is why I think all these arguments reek of patriotic sentiment because it always returns back to this! And apparently it just seems that this is out of offense because I dared to slander the royal family- what about the royal families of Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Lichtenstein, among the others in the world? This is directed at all royal families whose right to rule is based on their heredity.

The reason why I bring up this "patriotic sentiment", is that you keep bringing this back to "me" pushing the "American system" onto the UK. I'm not doing anything of the sort, and the reason that you keep bringing this back to America indicates to me that you are acting out of patriotic sentiment. You keep slapping this dummy around, jumping back to the House of Lords more than the Royal family, and it's beginning to look like an issue of you getting angry because you think that I've insulted the UK. This isn't what I'm aiming for- I could care less about the United States- I want to see why people keep monarchs, because I've not been told anything beyond that they serve a cultural/historical purpose or are ceremonial.

Why get rid of them? It seems like needless tampering with the political process for no gain and much potential loss. I'm a conservative by nature, if something's working leave it alone until something better comes along.

Interact

About

DBolical

GameFront

The best serving of video game culture, since 1998. Whether you're looking for the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, tools, tips or advice, GameFront has you covered. Browse through over 150,000 mods, maps, tools and more. Game on!